Re: Unfreakingbelievable!


Yukon King wrote:
> rebecca wrote:
>
>
> > I agree...what frustrates me wrt lyme issues is, I actually know of
> > several lawyers who have chronic lyme or are involved in lyme activism
> > because of a family member. and more than one has mentioned
> > possibilities for legal action against the government, especially {US
> > DHHS}. but they never do a goddamned thing, and they could at least
> > help jump start this stuff.
>
> Posssibilities are one thing.
>
> Viable theories are quite another thing.
>
> Talk is cheap. Litigation is not.
>
>
> hold forth on why he/she thinks various
> > types of civil action could be successful, and then they don't lift a
> > *#%!@$ finger to help out.
>
>
> You are ASSuming that there is in fact, a viable legal theory available
> under which to proceed.
>
> If there is, no one I know of has been able to figure one out.
>
> You see, it is helpful before going to court, to actually have some
> sort of wrong or injury that can be addressed within the boundaries of
> the law.
>
> Legitimate differences of scientific opinion are not something that
> courts address.
>
> You have to start with a controversy that is "justiciable".

And, of course, as I've tried to explain to him, standing, and no
obstacle of sovereign immunity and a causal relationship between the
alleged harm and the specific injury to a plaintiff....

So, for example, apparently brucie, though unwilling to articulate this
theory in even broad outlines, believes that "fraudulent research" has
let to a poor standard of medical care, which resulted in his
misdiagnosis as a mental patient (assuming that is a misdiagnosis--for
the sake of argument--I happen to think that is a BIG HUGE assumption).

But when we reach the "but for" and need to show how it would have been
different BUT FOR, with the requisite amount of certainty--not to
mention the fact that he wasn't treated by the NIH, but by his doctor,
I mean, there ain't no end run around basic medical malpractice
standards for this lunacy.

And since the standard of care IS so abysmal, and there are LOTS of
problems with demonstrating medical malpractice in Lyme cases....

well......

.

Relevant Pages

  • RICO, RICO, RICO........ !!!
    ... The standard changed in 1994 at the Dearborn ... the serologic definition of Lyme ... and that is CDC's own report. ... If your test misses 80-90% of the cases, then your "vaccine" will be ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • For derDickless
    ... False Claims Act à Allen Steere's 1993 blood testing standard for ... Lyme is completely bogus. ... standard, such as Klempner's chronic Lyme "study," were also ... "The sera we used for these studies were obtained from Lyme disease ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • "Chuck P Adams" (McSweegan) and the Lyme Scam
    ... "The people involved in this crime of LymeRIX conspired to change the ... CDC's official bloodtesting standard so that they could capture all ... of the national testing for Lyme, because they were the only ones ... and specific to use in any general Lyme disease screening or diagnostic ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Roanoke Response 2005: Standard of care for Lyme is under dispute
    ... Medicine was accurate but incomplete ("Shining a light on Lyme ... the charges of improper patient care stemmed from ... treat patients suffering from Lyme disease. ... At issue is the standard of care followed by most physicians (Centers ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • 1001 Reasons why CDC blood testing methodology sucks #0001
    ... arthritis-presenting patients showed over time. ... vaccine trial, specifically--the validity of serological standard used, ... In Lyme disease, patients produce variable antibodies over time, most ... most of those identified antigens are variable antigens. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)